Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Judgment -Summary:
Waqf Management is not a religious affairs and refuse to stay on whole proviso of Act.
Waqf Today : Jawed Ahmad Editor
Delhi : This Supreme Court of India judgment addresses challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, focusing on the constitutionality of amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995. Petitioners argued that several sections of the amended act violate the Constitution, while the respondents defended the amendments as necessary to address misuse and protect public property.
Key Issues and Arguments:
1. “Waqf by User” (Section 3(r))
Petitioners’ Argument: Deletion of “Waqf by User” is discriminatory and affects religious practices, relying on historical recognition and a previous Supreme Court case.Respondents’ Argument: The amendment is prospective and aims to prevent encroachment on government and private properties, supported by instances of misuse.
Court’s Finding: Acknowledges historical recognition but notes potential for misuse. The amendment is prospective.
2.Government Properties (Section 3C): o Petitioners’ Argument: Section 3C allows the government to unilaterally seize Waqf properties by declaring them as government property, with a flawed inquiry process by revenue officers.o Respondents’ Argument: Section 3C establishes a mechanism for inquiry to correct records where government properties were wrongly claimed as Waqf.
Court’s Finding: Finds issues with the proviso that suspends Waqf status before inquiry and with entrusting title determination to revenue officers. The court held that determination of title of a property being entrusted to a revenue officer would not be in tune with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.
3.Composition of Waqf Council and Boards (Sections 9 & 14): o Petitioners’ Argument: Amendments allow for a majority of non-Muslim members, interfering with Waqf management.o Respondents’ Argument: Central Waqf Council has an advisory role, and Non muslim members promote inclusivity; the number of non-Muslims is limited.
Court’s Finding: Acknowledges petitioners’ argument, but issues a direction to limit the number of non-Muslim members to no more than 4 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 in State Boards.
4.Chief Executive Officer Appointment (Section 23): Petitioners’ Argument: The CEO of the Board may not be a Muslim.o o Respondents’ Argument: The CEO’s functions are administrative, and the Board has control.
Court’s Finding: Directs that an effort should be made to appoint the CEO from the Muslim community.
5. Registration Requirements (Section 36): o Petitioners’ Argument: Mandatory registration and consequences of nonregistration are contrary to Islamic law and deny remedies.o Respondents’ Argument: Registration is necessary to prevent misuse, citing historical precedents and the Waqf Enquiry Committee report.
Court’s Finding: Upholds the registration requirement, citing historical precedents and the need to prevent misuse.
6. Applicability to Scheduled Tribes (Section 3E): o Petitioners’ Argument: Restrictions on declaring land in Scheduled/Tribal areas as Waqf property infringes on religious freedom.o Respondents’ Argument: The provision protects vulnerable tribal populations and their cultural practices, citing constitutional obligations and judgments.
Court’s Finding: Upholds the provision, citing the need to protect vulnerable tribal populations and their distinct cultural practices.
7. Donations by Non-Muslims (Section 104): Petitioners’ Argument: Deletion of the provision allowing non-Muslims to donate to Waqfs is violative of the constitution.o Respondents’ Argument: Waqfs are specific to Islam, and the amendment aligns with the definition of Waqf.
Court’s Finding: Finds the petitioner’s arguments contradictory, as Waqfs are specific to Islam.
*8.* Application of Limitation Act (Section 107): Petitioners’ Argument: Making the Limitation Act applicable is discriminatory.o Respondents’ Argument: It removes discrimination rather than creating it.
Court’s Finding: Finds that this removes discrimination rather than creating it.
9. Evacuee Waqf Properties (Section 108): o Petitioners’ Argument: Deletion prohibits Waqf creation out of evacuee properties and is barred by limitation.o Respondents’ Argument: The underlying law regarding evacuee property has been repealed, making the provision redundant.
Court’s Finding: Notes that the underlying law regarding evacuee property has been repealed, making the provision redundant.
Outcome:
The court rejects the prayer for a stay of the entire Waqf Amendment Act but issues specific directions to protect the interests of the parties involved and to balance the equities during the pendency of the matters. It stays certain provisions related to the demonstration of Islamic practice, and the treatment of properties pending inquiry, and directs the central waqf council should not have more than 4 non-muslim members. The court clarifies that its observations are preliminary and will not prevent parties from further submissions on the validity of the amend Act.
